Philosophy Forum

Read Topic
Reply

Are Dimensions limited to conscious experience/reality?

Philosophy Forum
» Metaphysics
» Are Dimensions limited to conscious experience/reality?

Get Email Updates • Email this Topic • Print this Page

Our ability to perceive 3D is due to what? Is it due to our mind or brain?

I have another question. The brain is a complex system, and yet in what way is it actually complex? We perceive it as complex yet we require to perceive it as such in order for it to be complex. So how did it arise as complex in the first place??

How does actuality cause differentiation???

And another question. We perceive 'objects'. A pencil is a pencil, but we can also differentiate it. It can now be graphite and wood and aluminum and synthetic rubber. We differentiate it and yet we are still left with 'objects'. The process of this differentiation seems to be over a matter of intention, which is really just what 'potential' is relevant or required.

Our brain takes the environment (including oneself) and object-orients everything. As a result we get fractals, inevitably, do we not? And as long as we remain in the same dimension, the object orientation follows linearly. For example, in 3D, the object orientation has a linear causation 'line' or whatever you want to call it, and I am wondering now, what exactly happens to the causation 'line' when dimensions are incremented?

In order to do so, first we'd need to determine what causes us to be able to perceive in the 3rd dimension.

See, what are these 'objects' other than intentions/potentials? Objects do not exist (nor does anything) without intention/potential, and what is intention/potential other than a working with information?

So it's not fair to assign a 'pencil' as 3D, nor is it fair to assign the graphite, wood, aluminum, rubber as intrinsically '3D', and nor is it it fair to assign the individual subatomic particles as intrinsically '3D'. The dimension we perceive is static because the process emerging the perception of such is also in a practically static, complex state.

Though I don't see how information can be inherently this or that dimension, I am wondering if perhaps it is information that is directly related to some other state which directly tells what mathematical/actual(to the extent that it matters) dimension that anything can be, that is, if be's and things are still valid.

@Holiday20310401,

Holiday20310401;72479 wrote:

Our ability to perceive 3D is due to what? Is it due to our mind or brain?

Do you mean that the world is truely spatially 3d and our physiology has evolved to percieve this or that the world has more than 3 spatial dimensions but our physiology limits our perception to 3d or I have missed your point Smile

Holiday20310401;72479 wrote:

I have another question. The brain is a complex system, and yet in what way is it actually complex? We perceive it as complex yet we require to perceive it as such in order for it to be complex. So how did it arise as complex in the first place??

How does actuality cause differentiation???

I think it is complex in its construction and function bought about by evolution PLoS Biology: Molecular Insights into Human Brain Evolution

Holiday20310401;72479 wrote:

And another question. We perceive 'objects'. A pencil is a pencil, but we can also differentiate it. It can now be graphite and wood and aluminum and synthetic rubber. We differentiate it and yet we are still left with 'objects'. The process of this differentiation seems to be over a matter of intention, which is really just what 'potential' is relevant or required.

Our brain takes the environment (including oneself) and object-orients everything. As a result we get fractals, inevitably, do we not? And as long as we remain in the same dimension, the object orientation follows linearly. For example, in 3D, the object orientation has a linear causation 'line' or whatever you want to call it, and I am wondering now, what exactly happens to the causation 'line' when dimensions are incremented?

In order to do so, first we'd need to determine what causes us to be able to perceive in the 3rd dimension.

Rather simply we see in 3d becasue of Stereopsis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ie the eyes different positions in the head

Holiday20310401;72479 wrote:

See, what are these 'objects' other than intentions/potentials? Objects do not exist (nor does anything) without intention/potential, and what is intention/potential other than a working with information?

This idea is present in quantum mechanics. Fundamental particles do not have defined properties eg position, spin etc until the particle interacts with a measuring device, which can be thought of as exchanging/recording information about the interaction.

@validity,

validity;72595 wrote:

Do you mean that the world is truely spatially 3d and our physiology has evolved to percieve this or that the world has more than 3 spatial dimensions but our physiology limits our perception to 3d or I have missed your point

The environment is not truly/actually any dimension. Our physiology evolves for the greater organization and complexity... I guess, but now I'm thinking that it is not about achieving a perception of a higher spatial dimension. Dimensions could not actually be limited spatially. But I wonder why there requires spatial dimensions. Why do we perceive them at all?

We perceive information as objects but why does the changing of information require a relative locality between objects, 'extension'. And why would extension result in the perceived locality there is now, since ofcourse, locality is only perceived/reality driven. There must be an infinite many paths to get from point A to point B, but what exactly is point A and point B in actuality? They are neither local or non-local from each other. Simply, they are non-'extensioned' or whatever you want to call it. And why out of all the n-paths there are must the brain call upon a distance extension, and distance extension can really only be defined as "what is now" or "the result of the complexity that brings about that which can sense information in a specific way". But why did it so happen that information organizes in this way that we end up with a brain, and a body, and sensory organs and such, all that works to define objects that say ok... there is a relative distance between object 'pencil' and object 'paper' of 5cm. This distance between one another is defined by what I am perceiving which I can't really help because that is what my body evolved into.

And while there is a locality (distance) and this is marked as 5cm if including the example pencil and paper, are there not many other localities to choose from? If the objects 'pencil' and 'paper' are clumps of information for example, they can be relative in many ways other than distance, and if one changes their perception of how they are relative to one another, the doesn't their locality change? One could send information from point A(pencil) to point B(paper) via distance or by other methods, are there not other methods? Ofcourse there are, otherwise topology would be useless.

validity;72595 wrote:

Rather simply we see in 3d becasue of Stereopsis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ie the eyes different positions in the head

Yes, and this is the result of the complex system (body) evolving into something which allows for this.

validity;72595 wrote:

This idea is present in quantum mechanics. Fundamental particles do not have defined properties eg position, spin etc until the particle interacts with a measuring device, which can be thought of as exchanging/recording information about the interaction.

So are they saying that a particle is not a particle until it is measured?

@Holiday20310401,

I think a more acute question would be, does it matter if the universe isn't limited to our perceptual dimentions?

@Holiday20310401,

Holiday20310401;72637 wrote:

The environment is not truly/actually any dimension. Our physiology evolves for the greater organization and complexity... I guess, but now I'm thinking that it is not about achieving a perception of a higher spatial dimension. Dimensions could not actually be limited spatially. But I wonder why there requires spatial dimensions. Why do we perceive them at all?

I appreciate what you are saying. The notion that our percieved reality accounts for a portion of a total reality beyond that which we can percieve is an interesting one. If as you say, the environment is not truly/actually any dimension and yet we percieve an environment that does have dimensionality, then are suggesting that our experience should not form a basis to any consistent theory of reality? I am of the opinion that we can only build a true/actual nature of reality from our experience of it.

Holiday20310401;72637 wrote:

So are they saying that a particle is not a particle until it is measured?

The property of definite location is not something a "particle" has prior to measurement.

@validity,

validity;72983 wrote:

I appreciate what you are saying. The notion that our percieved reality accounts for a portion of a total reality beyond that which we can percieve is an interesting one. If as you say, the environment is not truly/actually any dimension and yet we percieve an environment that does have dimensionality, then are suggesting that our experience should not form a basis to any consistent theory of reality? I am of the opinion that we can only build a true/actual nature of reality from our experience of it.

Yes.

validity;72983 wrote:

The property of definite location is not something a "particle" has prior to measurement.

So it works!! Smile

@Holiday20310401,

Ever read "Flatlands"?

We cannot exclude a 5th, 10th, 1000th dimension based on experience / observation. If string theorists or whatever can posit them mathematically, where would one of these exist?

@Aedes,

No I haven't but I've heard it mentioned on this forum more than any other book and I want to pick it up, shall read it over the summer.

Dimensions are a fascinating topic.

@Holiday20310401,

Let us go with this Holiday20310401, that the environment is not truly/actually any dimension and yet we percieve an environment that does have dimensionality, then are suggesting that our experience should not form a basis to any consistent theory of reality?

From my statement it can be said that an unmeasured particle does not have the property of location but a consistent theory of reality must be based on that which is , or is capable of, being measured. If there is no way to determine what a particle is really doing between measurements, besides measuring it, then where does that leave the possibility of describing what a particle is doing between measurements and should these philosophical statements be given a promotion to the status of reflecting reality?

Aedes;73512 wrote:

We cannot exclude a 5th, 10th, 1000th dimension based on experience / observation.

Mathematics provides sensible options, physics determines what is reflective of reality. Let us say that gravitons are discovered and they are observed to disappear consistently with what higher dimensional theory predict eg brane theory. How do we know the gravitons have leaked to higher dimensions? Would not we need feedback from the higher dimension confirming the appearance of gravitons in order to say yes there are higher dimensions?

Aedes;73512 wrote:

If string theorists or whatever can posit them mathematically, where would one of these exist?

They would exist where the other dimensions exist ie at every point.

@validity,

validity;73538 wrote:

Let us go with this Holiday20310401, that the environment is not truly/actually any dimension and yet we percieve an environment that does have dimensionality, then are suggesting that our experience should not form a basis to any consistent theory of reality?

I'm not saying that experience should have no form, far from it, but I'm saying that there can be no consistent theory, no laws that govern everything.

validity;73538 wrote:

From my statement it can be said that an unmeasured particle does not have the property of location but a consistent theory of reality must be based on that which is , or is capable of, being measured.

Yes, reality can be measured and actuality cannot.

validity;73538 wrote:

If there is no way to determine what a particle is really doing between measurements, besides measuring it, then where does that leave the possibility of describing what a particle is doing between measurements

What exactly does it mean to measure something?

@Holiday20310401,

Holiday20310401;73786 wrote:

I'm saying that there can be no consistent theory, no laws that govern everything.

What I do not seem to understand is that if there are laws that govern some things and not others, then what determines which things are governed by laws and which are not?

Holiday20310401;73786 wrote:

What exactly does it mean to measure something?

The definition I am using is that measurement is an interaction where information is transfered.

Can the difference between

the environment constructs the mind
and
the mind constructs the environment

be demonstrated?

Is there a difference?
Is there another possibility?

I shall ponder some more...

Philosophy Forum
» Metaphysics
» Are Dimensions limited to conscious experience/reality?

Read Topic
Reply

Philosophy Forum

Are Dimensions limited to conscious experience/reality?

Quick Links

My Account

able2know